Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Haha, I wanted to open a thread called And Now They’re Coming to Take Away Your Cows!

The wild claims being made by Republicans about the New Green Plan are going to be a test of stupidity and credulity levels in the US. Trump standing at the podium in Texas and saying ‘you won’t be able to own a cow’ is mind boggling.

Someone out there has got to be drawing a cartoon of a cow holding an AK-47 right now, eh?

And speaking of stupidity, I think the most stupid of Trump supporters has revealed himself. Cliff Sims, who wrote the new book Nest of Vipers about his 500 days working in the WH, is being sued, not by Trump, but by the Trump campaign, under the terms of an NDA he signed as a campaign worker. For work in the WH, for crying out loud! This apparently is because the law is well settled that you can’t stop a person’s rights to freedom of speech about working in the WH as long as no government confidential information is revealed. They can’t shut him up under a WH NDA, so the Trump campaign is claiming they can silence him under their NDA. And he still supports Donald Trump! What a tool!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Haha, I wanted to open a thread called And Now They’re Coming to Take Away Your Cows!

The wild claims being made by Republicans about the New Green Plan are going to be a test of stupidity and credulity levels in the US. Trump standing at the podium in Texas and saying ‘you won’t be able to own a cow’ is mind boggling.

Someone out there has got to be drawing a cartoon of a cow holding an AK-47 right now, eh?

And speaking of stupidity, I think the most stupid of Trump supporters has revealed himself. Cliff Sims, who wrote the new book Nest of Vipers about his 500 days working in the WH, is being sued, not by Trump, but by the Trump campaign, under the terms of an NDA he signed as a campaign worker. For work in the WH, for crying out loud! This apparently is because the law is well settled that you can’t stop a person’s rights to freedom of speech about working in the WH as long as no government confidential information is revealed. They can’t shut him up under a WH NDA, so the Trump campaign is claiming they can silence him under their NDA. And he still supports Donald Trump! What a tool!

Maybe Stephen Colbert can have him back on to softball more book sales.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As a member of the Gang of Eight and the Gang of Twelve—a group of top-level lawmakers authorized to receive national-security intelligence—Burr was repeatedly presented with evidence showing that Russian agents had hacked the Democratic National Committee, were working to help Trump win, and were targeting state-level voting systems. Nevertheless, on Oct. 3, 2016, he told Foreign Policy that “I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe” that Russia was meddling in the election to help Trump. Just Security adds that Burr was also the only person who joined the Trump campaign who was privy to intelligence showing that members of the Trump campaign may have been colluding with Russia.

This would be more compelling if Obama and his administration didn't basically sweep it under the rug during the election as well. I understand his reasoning for doing so - and did at the time too - but it's hard to blame the other side for doing the same thing after the fact.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Haha, I wanted to open a thread called And Now They’re Coming to Take Away Your Cows!

The wild claims being made by Republicans about the New Green Plan are going to be a test of stupidity and credulity levels in the US. Trump standing at the podium in Texas and saying ‘you won’t be able to own a cow’ is mind boggling.

Someone out there has got to be drawing a cartoon of a cow holding an AK-47 right now, eh?

And speaking of stupidity, I think the most stupid of Trump supporters has revealed himself. Cliff Sims, who wrote the new book Nest of Vipers about his 500 days working in the WH, is being sued, not by Trump, but by the Trump campaign, under the terms of an NDA he signed as a campaign worker. For work in the WH, for crying out loud! This apparently is because the law is well settled that you can’t stop a person’s rights to freedom of speech about working in the WH as long as no government confidential information is revealed. They can’t shut him up under a WH NDA, so the Trump campaign is claiming they can silence him under their NDA. And he still supports Donald Trump! What a tool!

They already passed the stupidity tests based on their claims and reactions to AOC's marginal tax proposal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This would be more compelling if Obama and his administration didn't basically sweep it under the rug during the election as well. I understand his reasoning for doing so - and did at the time too - but it's hard to blame the other side for doing the same thing after the fact.

I don't see the calculus on this; the Obama administration swept it under the rug after they presented the intelligence to McConnell and he told them to get fucked.

Sweeping this under the rug went against the partisan interests of the Obama administration; however, it would benefit the partisan interests of Republicans and Burr.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't see the calculus on this; the Obama administration swept it under the rug after they presented the intelligence to McConnell and he told them to get fucked.

Obama still had the option of making it public himself. There are valid arguments that he should have. I disagree, but the argument for not emphasizing the issue rests on reasoning that largely pertains to not exacerbating the situation. Therefore, while I'd be pissed off if any Obama administration official had made such a lying statement during that time (instead of just saying nothing), the distinction between the two isn't significant enough to get all up in arms about two years later.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Obama still had the option of making it public himself. There are valid arguments that he should have. I disagree, but the argument for not emphasizing the issue rests on reasoning that largely pertains to not exacerbating the situation. Therefore, while I'd be pissed off if any Obama administration official had made such a lying statement during that time (instead of just saying nothing), the distinction between the two isn't significant enough to get all up in arms about two years later.

It wasn't just that McConnell threatened to make it a partisan issue. The time between Presidential administrations is a dangerous time, because a massive amount of power is being turned over. No sane non-Trump President wants to be seen as interfering in an election, because it is remarkably similar to staging a coup. And Obama was presented with the unenviable task of making one of 2 decisions, both of which would interfere with the election. Further interfere that is, it already have been interfered with by the Russians.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A﻿nd Obama was presented with the unenviable task of making one of 2 decisions, both of which would interfere with the election. Further interfere that is, it already have been interfered with by the Russians.

Right. That's why I agree with his decision not to make it an election issue - and what I meant by not exacerbating the situation.

Hey - I had 30 week premies. Does this need a trigger warning? Because having been in a bunch of support groups, including some parents who lost their kids/had stillbirths, I don't want to open this unless I know what I'm getting into.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So Howard Schulz thinks he should be taxed more (but he doesnt know how much). At the same time, he thinks a 70% marginal rate is punitive.

I think the consensus among most of us is that 70% was sort of an opening bid for negotiation, not something set in stone. The overwhelming feeling among Americans is that millionaires and billionaires pay too little in taxes, even if we end up at 50% it would be a good start. On the flip side, Bezos only had a yearly salary of 80k so maybe a wealth tax is the way to go....

Anyway, while those points can be debated, I want to know why Schulz can go on all these tours without figuring out same basic tenets of his economic platform/philosophy. I mean, that is such a Trumpian thing to do.